squakmtn’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'm all for women's education and the rights. However, this line of argument just allows all the men to abdicate responsibility. "If only the women were empowered", sheesh. What about "If only the men weren't friggin idiots!" Males of all various cultures oblivious to the impact of their actions, including treating half the population as property. Humans and their willful blindness...

  On Umbra advises on population posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  NOT the same as motorized

  Claiming mountain bikes are in the same league as motorized access is pure BS.  Motorized access does at least an order of magnitude more trail damage, never mind the noise made is "shared" with everyone within at least a 1/4 mile.  And when compared to horses, mountain bikes have significantly less trail impact.  I have over 30 years of hiking and backpacking experience in the Cascades and I just can't see where opening some more trails to mountain bikes would create a serious problem.  For example, it is my experience that the bikers with trail ettiquette problems don't have the fitness or stamina to ride very far into the mountains.  All riders I have met in the few remote areas open to mountain bikes have been without exception respectful and courteous.  They are not red state motorheads but instead young, fit, and motivated people who get involved in public lands protection issues.  It would be a mistake to discourage this group.  On Rule change would allow more mountain biking in national parks posted 11 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What's in a number?

  No doubt about it, the problem is that the numbers tracked for economic well being are a major source of the problems we are facing.  (who chooses what to numbers to publish is a political issue I won't discuss here)  Why is "growth" the holy grail of economics?  No matter how carefully one manufactures a technical construct for defining growth in non-environmental terms, the bottom line always comes back to the fact you don't get more economic growth without adding more people who are consuming more resources.  With a limited set of planet wide resources this thinking creates a zero sum game, with ever increasing and frantic competition leading up to a collapse.  All of which is unnecessary.  If quality of life and efficient and sustainable resource use were the basis of economic success (instead of just "more") then the calamity of overpopulation and the subsequent crashing economies, environment, and warfare for diminishing resources would be avoided...

  The epitaph of "modern" civilization, "They were chasing the wrong numbers..."On We need better ways to measure well-being posted 3 years ago 4 Responses